GNU bug report logs - #35321
[PATCH] * src/bytecode.c (exec_byte_code) Unroll Blist3 and Blist4

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 35321 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 35321 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Alex Gramiak <agrambot <at> gmail.com>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: [PATCH] * src/bytecode.c (exec_byte_code) Unroll Blist3 and Blist4
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 08:41:43 -0600

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hopefully someone with experience in the byte compiler can affirm that
this is okay. It passes make check for me (outside of 1 flymake error
that occurs in master as well).

[0001-src-bytecode.c-exec_byte_code-Unroll-Blist3-and-Blis.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

Message #8 received at 35321 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Alex Gramiak <agrambot <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 35321 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#35321: [PATCH] * src/bytecode.c (exec_byte_code) Unroll Blist3
 and Blist4
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 18:08:53 +0300

> From: Alex Gramiak <agrambot <at> gmail.com>
> Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 08:41:43 -0600
> 
> Hopefully someone with experience in the byte compiler can affirm that
> this is okay. It passes make check for me (outside of 1 flymake error
> that occurs in master as well).

Does this produce any tangible performance gains?

Message #11 received at 35321 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Alex Gramiak <agrambot <at> gmail.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 35321 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#35321: [PATCH] * src/bytecode.c (exec_byte_code) Unroll
 Blist3 and Blist4
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 14:30:03 -0600

Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Alex Gramiak <agrambot <at> gmail.com>
>> Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 08:41:43 -0600
>> 
>> Hopefully someone with experience in the byte compiler can affirm that
>> this is okay. It passes make check for me (outside of 1 flymake error
>> that occurs in master as well).
>
> Does this produce any tangible performance gains?

It seems to be within error. I was just in the byte compiler recently
and saw that Blist3/4 don't use list3/4 like Blist2 uses list2. If
you're worried about touching older code for little gain, then I guess
it's safer to leave it alone.

Message #14 received at 35321 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Alex Gramiak <agrambot <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 35321 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#35321: [PATCH] * src/bytecode.c (exec_byte_code) Unroll
 Blist3 and Blist4
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 23:49:13 +0300

> From: Alex Gramiak <agrambot <at> gmail.com>
> Cc: 35321 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 14:30:03 -0600
> 
> > Does this produce any tangible performance gains?
> 
> It seems to be within error. I was just in the byte compiler recently
> and saw that Blist3/4 don't use list3/4 like Blist2 uses list2. If
> you're worried about touching older code for little gain, then I guess
> it's safer to leave it alone.

Is there any reason other than performance to make the change?

Also, are Blist3/4 used frequently enough to justify the change?

Message #17 received at 35321 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Alex Gramiak <agrambot <at> gmail.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 35321 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#35321: [PATCH] * src/bytecode.c (exec_byte_code) Unroll
 Blist3 and Blist4
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 15:31:01 -0600

Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Alex Gramiak <agrambot <at> gmail.com>
>> Cc: 35321 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
>> Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 14:30:03 -0600
>> 
>> > Does this produce any tangible performance gains?
>> 
>> It seems to be within error. I was just in the byte compiler recently
>> and saw that Blist3/4 don't use list3/4 like Blist2 uses list2. If
>> you're worried about touching older code for little gain, then I guess
>> it's safer to leave it alone.
>
> Is there any reason other than performance to make the change?

There's no functional difference, so the only remaining aspects are
readability and similarity with the other BlistX cases. I suppose it
loses on the readability front, and it's not much of an issue to be
dissimilar to Blist2. Perhaps it's best to leave this alone after all.

> Also, are Blist3/4 used frequently enough to justify the change?

They're used any time (list x y z) and (list w x y z) are byte-compiled,
so I imagine they're used quite a bit.

Message #20 received at 35321 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Alex Gramiak <agrambot <at> gmail.com>,
 Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Cc: 35321 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#35321: [PATCH] * src/bytecode.c (exec_byte_code) Unroll
 Blist3 and Blist4
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2019 09:20:07 +0300

> From: Alex Gramiak <agrambot <at> gmail.com>
> Cc: 35321 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 15:31:01 -0600
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
> 
> >> From: Alex Gramiak <agrambot <at> gmail.com>
> >> Cc: 35321 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> >> Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 14:30:03 -0600
> >> 
> >> > Does this produce any tangible performance gains?
> >> 
> >> It seems to be within error. I was just in the byte compiler recently
> >> and saw that Blist3/4 don't use list3/4 like Blist2 uses list2. If
> >> you're worried about touching older code for little gain, then I guess
> >> it's safer to leave it alone.
> >
> > Is there any reason other than performance to make the change?
> 
> There's no functional difference, so the only remaining aspects are
> readability and similarity with the other BlistX cases. I suppose it
> loses on the readability front, and it's not much of an issue to be
> dissimilar to Blist2. Perhaps it's best to leave this alone after all.
> 
> > Also, are Blist3/4 used frequently enough to justify the change?
> 
> They're used any time (list x y z) and (list w x y z) are byte-compiled,
> so I imagine they're used quite a bit.

OK, thanks.  I'm undecided on this.  Stefan, any comments?

Message #23 received at 35321 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 35321 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Alex Gramiak <agrambot <at> gmail.com>
Subject: Re: bug#35321: [PATCH] * src/bytecode.c (exec_byte_code) Unroll
 Blist3 and Blist4
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2019 16:05:16 -0400

> OK, thanks.  I'm undecided on this.  Stefan, any comments?

I don't see any reason to reject the change.


        Stefan

Message #26 received at 35321 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Cc: 35321 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, agrambot <at> gmail.com
Subject: Re: bug#35321: [PATCH] * src/bytecode.c (exec_byte_code) Unroll
 Blist3 and Blist4
Date: Fri, 03 May 2019 11:41:16 +0300

> From: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
> Cc: Alex Gramiak <agrambot <at> gmail.com>,  35321 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2019 16:05:16 -0400
> 
> > OK, thanks.  I'm undecided on this.  Stefan, any comments?
> 
> I don't see any reason to reject the change.

OK, so Alex, please go ahead, and thanks.

Message #29 received at 35321 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 35321 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>,
 agrambot <at> gmail.com
Subject: Re: bug#35321: [PATCH] * src/bytecode.c (exec_byte_code) Unroll
 Blist3 and Blist4
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2019 19:36:27 +0200

Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
>> Cc: Alex Gramiak <agrambot <at> gmail.com>,  35321 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
>> Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2019 16:05:16 -0400
>> 
>> > OK, thanks.  I'm undecided on this.  Stefan, any comments?
>> 
>> I don't see any reason to reject the change.
>
> OK, so Alex, please go ahead, and thanks.

It looks like applying the patch was forgotten, so I've now applied
Alex' patch to master.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.